Energy & Sustainability – Page 3

Native Hawaiians Provide Lessons In Fisheries Management

Roughly three-quarters of the Earth’s surface is covered with water. As I stand on a beach in Hawaii and look out over the vast, blue expanse in front of me, I am overwhelmed by the immensity of the Pacific Ocean. My brain wrestles with numbers far beyond its capacity to visualize. In that moment, it is incomprehensible that even seven billion humans could deplete such a boundless and unimaginable resource. Yet, I know that we are. We are emptying the oceans of their fish, one species at a time.

Today, 85 percent of the world’s fisheries are either fully exploited, overexploited or have already collapsed. Combined, the world’s fishermen catch 2.5 times the sustainable number of fish every year. Scientists predict that if current trends continue, world food fisheries may collapse entirely by 2050. “We are in the situation where 40 years down the line we, effectively, are out of fish,” explains Pavan Sukhdev, special advisor to the UN Environment Programme.

What we need are better management strategies. Now, researchers from the Center for Ocean Solutions at Stanford University are turning to the past for advice. Loren McClenachan and Jack Kittinger used historical records to reconstruct fish catches for the past seven hundred years to see if earlier civilizations did a better job than we are at managing their fisheries. The authors were able to characterize historical catch rates in the Florida Keys and Hawaii by reviewing a variety of historical sources, including species-specific catch records from the 1800s and archaeological reconstructions of population densities and per-capita fish consumption.

“Seven hundred years of history clearly demonstrate that management matters,” said Loren McClenachan, co-author of the study and assistant professor of environmental studies at Colby College. In Florida, fisheries were characterized by years of boom and bust through sequential collapse of high-value species, many which are still endangered or extinct today. The Keys fisheries were set up for failure – unlike other historical island communities, the Keys were highly connected to other markets, increasing fisheries demand. Furthermore, they have historically lacked a centralized management system. But, while fisheries in the Florida Keys have always been poorly supervised, fisheries in Hawaii were once far better than they are today.

fisheries_catch_historical_hawaii_Florida — Annual fisheries catch per reef area for the Florida Keys and Hawaii over time.

“Before European contact, Native Hawaiians were catching fish at rates that far exceed what reefs currently provide society,” said Kittinger, co-author and early career fellow at the Center for Ocean Solutions. Native Hawaiians pulled in over 15,000 metric tons of fish per year, and these high yields were sustained over several hundred years, despite a dense Hawaiian population. “These results show us that fisheries can be both highly productive and sustainable, if they’re managed effectively.”

Much of the management system in Hawaii was tied to class and gender. For example, most offshore fishing was done by a professional fishing class who were familiar with their local environment. If they wanted to fish, they had to ask their chiefs, who regulated the fishing gear and canoes. The most valuable (and vulnerable) species like turtles and sharks were reserved for high chiefs and priests, reducing fishing pressure.

The key to the Hawaiian’s success lay in using a diverse suite of management measures. Many of the methods they used are similar to strategies employed in fisheries management today, including protected areas, community-based management, regulation of gear and effort, aquaculture, and restrictions on vulnerable species.

Perhaps the greatest difference between management then and now, however is that in native Hawaiian society, rules were strictly enforced. “Rules were accompanied by robust sociocultural institutions,” the authors write. The ancient Hawaiians did not hesitate, and punished transgressors with corporal punishment. “Clearly, we don’t recommend this,” said Kittinger, “but it’s easy to see there’s room to tighten up today’s enforcement efforts.”

He’eia Fishpond in Kane’ohe Bay, Hawaii. Image c/o Paepae O He’eia

Other differences exist as well. For example, while aquaculture was used by the native Hawaiians, these fishponds were maintained for different reasons than we farm fish today. Fishponds did not contribute substantially to total fish production, but instead served as food security during tough times. As such, Hawaiians stocked fishponds with very different species than modern farms. Fishponds contained small, algae-eating species, requiring little from the sea to support them. Modern aquaculture, in contrast, relies heavily on wild-caught feeder species to support lucrative, luxury species like salmon. Five pounds of wild-caught fish are needed to produce one pound of farmed salmon, and instead of acting as a backup for when wild fish are scarce, fish farms make up a whopping 50% of our consumed fish production.

Kittinger and McClenachan hope that understanding successful management strategies by historical societies will lead to better management of our current resources. “The evidence we present from historical reconstructions shows that reef fishery sustainability has been achieved in the past,” they write, “which can guide actions for a more sustainable future for reefs and the communities that depend on them.”

Reference: McClenachan, L & JN Kittinger (2012). Multicentury trends and the sustainability of coral reef fisheries in Hawai‘i and Florida. Fish and Fisheries, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00465.x

Image of fishing c/o Flickr user dennistanay

Mythbusting 101: Sharks will cure cancer

Sharks are incredible animals. They’re some of the world’s most well known creatures, popular enough to get entire weeks of television dedicated to them. They hold a special place in our hearts and minds. Whether you fear them or love them, or a bit of both, they’ve dominated our oceans for hundreds of millions of years, and still manage to evoke powerful emotions from us.

But, as amazing as they are, they are not going to cure cancer.

First off, there will never be a “cure for cancer”. Not now, not in 50 years, no matter how much we know about how cancers form and spread. And no, it won’t be because there is some big conspiracy, where doctors and pharmaceutical companies are keeping some miracle drug from hitting the market.

You see, there can’t be a cure for cancer, because cancer isn’t a single disease. Cancer is a category of diseases, like rock is a category of music. While rock music is characterized by being song-based, usually with a 4/4 beat and a verse-chorus form, cancer is characterized by cell growth gone terribly wrong, allowing a group of cells to grow uncontrollably. You wouldn’t say that Korn and Elvis sound the same, would you? Well not all cancers are the same, either. Some cancers are slow growing, some are fast. Some are always fatal, others go away on their own.

The thing is, there is no universal trait to all cancers that can be attacked with one treatment, except for the fact that they are cells that grow out of control. Thus a universal cure for cancer would have to be something that prevented and reversed cell growth, which will never, ever be safe to take over an extended period of time. You need cells to grow and replicate in your body – just not when and where they shouldn’t be.

The treatment for a given cancer is heavily dependent on where it is and what it’s doing. There may eventually be a million cures – a cure for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, a cure for Basal Cell Carcinoma, a cure for Craniopharyngioma, and so on and so forth from A to Z – but there will never, ever be a cure for cancer.

But I digress.

The notion that sharks may hold they key to curing cancer rests on the idea that sharks don’t get cancer. Out of all they myths in the world, there are few that have been more ecologically damaging and pervasive despite unequivocal scientific evidence to the contrary. This simply untrue statement has led to the slaughter of millions of sharks via the industry for shark cartilage pills, which are sold to desperate cancer patients under the false pretense that they can help reduce or cure their illness.

The myth started way back in the 1970s when Henry Brem and Judah Folkman from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine first noted that cartilage prevented the growth of new blood vessels into tissues. This creation of a blood supply, called angiogenesis, is one of the key characteristics of malignant tumors, as the rapidly dividing cells need lots of nutrients to continue growing. It’s not shocking, then, that angiogenesis is a common target for those seeking potential cancer therapies.

Brem and Folkman began studying cartilage to search for anti-angiogenic compounds. They reasoned that since all cartilage lacks blood vessels, it must contain some signaling molecules or enzymes that prevent capillaries from forming. They found that inserting cartilage from baby rabbits alongside tumors in experimental animals completely prevented the tumors from growing¹. Further research showed calf cartilage, too, had anti-angiogenic properties². A young researcher by the name of Robert Langer decided to repeat the initial rabbit cartilage experiments, except this time using shark cartilage. Since sharks’ skeletons are entirely composed of cartilage, Langer reasoned that they would be a far more accessible source for potential therapeutics. And indeed, shark cartilage, like calf and rabbit cartilage, inhibited blood vessels from growing toward tumors ³.

Around the same time, a scientist by the name of Carl Luer at Mote Marine Laboratories in Sarasota, FL was looking into sharks and cancer, too. He’d noticed that sharks seem to have relatively low rates of disease, especially cancer, and wanted to test their susceptibility experimentally. So he exposed nurse sharks to high levels of aflatoxin B₁, a known carcinogen, and found no evidence that they developed tumors⁴.

That’s when Dr. I William Lane stepped in. He’d heard about the studies done by Langer and Luer, and become immediately entrenched in the idea that oral shark cartilage could be a treatment for cancer. In 1992 he published the book Sharks Don’t Get Cancer: How Shark Cartilage Could Save Your Life. The book was a best-seller, popular enough to draw in the media from 60 Minutes who did a special on Lane and his new cancer cure. The segment featured Lane and Cuban physicians and patients who had participated in a non-randomized and shoddily done ‘clinical trial’ in Mexico which heralded spectacular results. He then co-authored a second book, Sharks Still Don’t Get Cancer, in 1996.

Of course, Lane started up his own shark fishing and cartilage pill making business called LaneLabs (which still made and sold cartilage pills until recently). But Lane was not alone – many companies began selling shark cartilage pills and powders as alternative therapies or nutritional supplements. The world market for shark cartilage products was estimated to have exceeded $30 million in 1995, prompting more and more harvesting of sharks for their cartilage.

The results have been devastating. North American populations of sharks have decreased by up to 80% in the past decade, as cartilage companies harvest up to 200,000 sharks every month in US waters to create their products. One American-owned shark cartilage plant in Costa Rica is estimated to destroy 2.8 million sharks per year⁵. Sharks are slow growing species, and simply cannot reproduce fast enough to survive such sustained, intense fishing pressure. Unless fishing is dramatically decreased worldwide, a number of species of sharks will go extinct before we even notice.

It’s bad enough that all this ecological devastation is for a pill that doesn’t even work. Shark cartilage does not cure or treat cancer in any way, even in mouse models⁶. These are also the results of at least three randomized, FDA-approved clinical trials – one in 1998⁷, another in 2005⁸, and a final one presented in 2007 (published in 2010)⁹. Ingestion of shark cartilage powders or extracts had absolutely no positive effects on cancers that varied in type and severity. To paraphrase Dr. Andrew Vickers, shark cartilage as a cancer cure isn’t untested or unproven, it’s disproven¹⁰. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission stepped in by 2000, fining Lane $1 million as well as banning him from claiming that his supplements, or any shark cartilage derivatives, could prevent, treat or cure cancer.

But what’s worse is that this entire fraudulent enterprise that steals the money of those desperate for any kind of hope is based on a myth. No matter what a money-grubbing man with a PhD in Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition tries to tell you, sharks do get cancer.

Shark Tumors — L: Kidney Tumor, R: Cartilage Tumor

In 2004, Dr Gary Ostrander and his colleagues from the University of Hawaii published a survey of the Registry for Tumors in Lower Animals¹¹. Already in collection, they found 42 tumors in Chondrichthyes species (the class of cartilaginous fish that includes sharks, skates and rays). These included at least 12 malignant tumors and tumors throughout the body. Two sharks had multiple tumors, suggesting they were genetically susceptible or exposed to extremely high levels of carcinogens. There were even tumors found in shark cartilage! Ostrander hoped that this information would finally put to rest the myth that sharks are somehow magically cancer-free.

But it hasn’t. I still see all kinds of shark cartilage pills for sale at the local GNC. But furthermore, the myth that sharks are cancer-free is still believed by many intelligent people. I read a tweet from The National Aquarium a while ago that said “It must be something in the water. Sharks are the only known species to never suffer from cancer.” The National Aquarium has over 9,000 twitter followers, and this inaccurate tweet was passed on by a number of them, including The Smithsonian Marine Station in Fort Pierce, FL. How can such a large non-profit, dedicated to “extending the knowledge and resources gained through daily operations toward the betterment of the natural environment” perpetuate such an erroneous and ecologically damaging myth?

Then there’s the BBC, whose division called BBC Earth decided to run a “trick or treat” campaign for Halloween last year featuring truths or falsehoods about different animals. Among them?

When I called them out on their egregious error, they didn’t even admit they were wrong. Instead they simply said that “the science behind their immune systems is still an area of fascination which we know little about, and thankfully people are still studying.”

Maybe I haven’t been clear. Maybe we don’t know everything about shark immune systems, but there is one thing that we do know with 100% certainty.

SHARKS DO GET CANCER.

We can’t even really say they get cancer less often than other species. It’s true that the number of sharks that we have observed with cancer is low. However, only a couple studies have even attempted to look at disease rates in shark species. Furthermore, these studies are hampered by the fact that sharks tend to be wide-ranging, open ocean fish. They live in some of the least contaminated areas on earth. This means that, odds are, they have low levels of exposure to the chemicals that cause cancer in so many land and near-shore species. Furthermore, the odds that a really sick shark would make it into a researcher’s hands to study are slim. A shark whose function is compromised by tumors would likely end up the meal of other, hungry sharks long before they’d end up on a hook cast by scientists. So even the idea that sharks have low rates of cancer or disease is hard to scientifically support.

Perhaps the most disappointing part is that the shark immune system is incredibly fascinating and worth study whether or not it can squash out cancer. Sharks are the earliest evolutionary lineage to have developed an adaptive immune system complete with immunoglobin, T-cell receptors, MHCs and RAG proteins¹², and they do it without bone marrow, the source of almost all of our immune system cells. Instead, they have two completely unique immune organs, the Leydig’s and Epigonal organs, that are barely understood. Studying the shark immune system is essential to understanding the evolution of adaptive immunity that is present in all higher vertebrates. And if, indeed, they are resistant to cancer, then that makes the study of their immune system all that much more important.

Sharks at fish market in Japan, by Alex Hofford — Carcasses of sharks fished for their fins

Instead, we mindlessly kill millions of them a year to make Asian delicacies and ineffective cancer treatments, and we perpetuate the myth that sharks don’t get cancer. Be assured that whenever I see someone say that sharks don’t get cancer, I will call them out, especially if they should know better. It’s time that this myth is busted once and for all.

Images: A 5′ tiger shark at Coconut Island, photo © Christie Wilcox; LaneLabs Shark Cartilage Powder; Tumor examples from Ostrander et al. 2004. Left: a shark kidney tumor, right: a tumor in shark cartilage; Sharks at a factory finning plant in Japan, photo © Alex Hofford

References

Brem H, & Folkman J. (1975). Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis mediated by cartilage. J Exp Med (141), 427-439 DOI: 10.1084/jem.141.2.427

Langer R, & et al (1976). Isolations of a cartilage factor that inhibits tumor neovascularization. Science (193), 70-72 DOI: 10.1126/science.935859

Lee A, & Langer R. (1983). Shark cartilage contains inhibitors of tumor angiogenesis. Science (221), 1185-1187 DOI: 10.1126/science.6193581

Luer CA, & Luer WH (1982). Acute and chronic exposure of nurse sharks to aflatoxin B1 Federal Proceedings, 41

Camhi M. Costa Rica’s Shark Fishery and Cartilage Industry. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Organizations/SSG/sharknews/sn8/shark8news9.htm (1996).

Horsman MR, Alsner J, & Overgaard J (1998). The effect of shark cartilage extracts on the growth and metastatic spread of the SCCVII carcinoma. Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 37 (5), 441-5 PMID: 9831372

Miller DR, Anderson GT, Stark JJ, Granick JL, & Richardson D (1998). Phase I/II trial of the safety and efficacy of shark cartilage in the treatment of advanced cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 16 (11), 3649-55 PMID: 9817287

Loprinzi CL, Levitt R, Barton DL, Sloan JA, Atherton PJ, Smith DJ, Dakhil SR, Moore DF Jr, Krook JE, Rowland KM Jr, Mazurczak MA, Berg AR, Kim GP, & North Central Cancer Treatment Group (2005). Evaluation of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial. Cancer, 104 (1), 176-82 PMID: 15912493

Lu C, Lee JJ, Komaki R, Herbst RS, Feng L, Evans WK, Choy H, Desjardins P, Esparaz BT, Truong MT, Saxman S, Kelaghan J, Bleyer A, & Fisch MJ (2010). Chemoradiotherapy with or without AE-941 in stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 102 (12), 859-65 PMID: 20505152

Vickers, A (2004). Alternative cancer cures: “unproven” or “disproven”? CA: A Cancer Journal For Clinicians, 54, 110-118 DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.54.2.110

Ostrander GK, Cheng KC, Wolf JC, & Wolfe MJ (2004). Shark cartilage, cancer and the growing threat of pseudoscience. Cancer research, 64 (23), 8485-91 PMID: 15574750

Flajnik MF, & Rumfelt LL (2000). The immune system of cartilaginous fish. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol (249), 249-270

Tuna | Observations

Every once in a while, you write something you really, really like. You write something you like so much, you wish you could write it again, over and over. Well, I happen to have a few of these posts that I have written previous to my move here, and I want to share them with you. They’ll be labelled as “Observations,” indicating they were originally posted on my old blog, Observations of a Nerd. Enjoy!

mouse — Mouse, my adorable cousin, showing off a bubble

“Christie! Christie!” My four-year old cousin tugs eagerly on my jacket. “I wanna see the fishes.”

“Ok, Tuna, we can go see the fish.”

My little cousin loves the word ‘tuna’. She says it all the time. Tuna, tuna, tuna. Everything is a tuna-face or a tuna-head. She doesn’t even like tuna (she doesn’t eat it), but she loves the sound of the word rolling off her tongue. Finally, her nanny threatened that if she kept saying ‘tuna,’ we’d have to start calling her it. My ever so adorable cousin’s response was, of course, “TUNA!” So now that’s her nickname. She’s Tuna.

I’m waiting in line with her and her sister at the Rainforest Cafe in the Burlington Mall. They love the Rainforest Cafe. There’s a giant mechanical alligator out front that they can’t seem to get enough of. Mouse (as I now call Tuna’s older sister) is convinced that it’s real. Who am I to burst her bubble?

But now, in line, their eyes are instead drawn to the entrance arch of fish tanks. As a marine biologist, I feel obligated to tell them about the fish.

“You see that one? That’s a butterflyfish. And that one — that’s a grouper. Oh! And that little colorful one there — that’s the Hawaii State Fish. It’s name in Hawaiian is Humuhumunukunukuapua’a. Can you say Humuhumunukunukuapua’a?”

My two cousins look at me like I’m insane. I guess they’re a little young to try and learn Hawaiian fish names.

“Christie! Christie!” Tuna grabs my jacket again. “Are there any tuna?”

“Tuna. Tuna. TUNA!” Mouse grins at her sister, and the two burst into giggles.

Their attention quickly drifts to shooting back and forth funny words like Tuna and Pizza, and instead I am left with my little cousin’s innocent question derailing my thoughts.

Tuna. One of my favorite fish. Large, majestic creatures built for speed and strength. Even a rudimentary understanding of how perfectly suited they are as open ocean predators leaves one in awe of evolution’s handiwork. A sleek, streamlined design, with specialized circulation and muscles to provide warmth and power even in cold water — they are truly incredible fish.

There are many kinds of tuna: Albacore, Bigeye, Blackfin, Bluefin, Karasick, Longtail Skipjack and Yellowtail. Even within a ‘kind’ like Bluefin there is Northern Bluefin, Southern Bluefin, and Pacific Bluefin.

They’re all similar in that they’re unbelievably delicious.

I remember the last time I ate tuna. I would love to say it was a long time ago, but it wasn’t. I slipped into the take-out sushi place as quietly as possible, but the little bells attached to the door handle announced my entrance.

“Wat can get fo you?” the nice man behind the counter asked.

“I’ll have the Spicy Ahi Maki, please.” Once my treat was handed over, I made quick work of the bright red fish smothered in my favorite chili mayo. The soft, tender flesh melted in my mouth, tasting of decadence. Within a matter of minutes it was all over.

As soon as I walked out the door, though, it hit me. The guilt. You should know better, I chided myself. The tuna fisheries, by and large, are a disgrace. Many are overfished and on the verge of collapse. Take the Mediterranean Bluefin tuna fishery, the largest fishery for Bluefin in the world, for example. Tuna are caught young in massive numbers and corralled in cages offshore where they’re fattened for the sushi and sashimi market. If the Mediterranean Bluefin tuna fishery is not closed now, some scientists project that the tuna in that part of the world will be functionally extinct in just two years.

Of course, I know that the tuna I ate wasn’t likely to be Bluefin. It wasn’t Albacore, either, as Albacore is the tuna you get in cans, not the kind served in sushi bars (though it can be found under the name “Shiromaguro” if they have it). While the Japanese are much pickier about their labeling, giving each species a different name, in the states, Ahi or Maguro can refer to just about any tuna species, though most often it refers to Bigeye, Yellowfin or sometimes Skipjack. It’s only if you get Toro, the fatty tuna that will cost you an arm and a leg, that you’re likely to be eating Bluefin.

But ordering tuna in a restaurant is a bit like playing ecological Russian Roulette. Rarely do restaurants know or care where their fish comes from, only that they got it at a decent price. Even if they think they know and think they care, they’re often wrong. A recent study which genetically tested ordered tuna in restaurants found you may be served anything from the critically endangered Southern Bluefin to Escolar, a disgusting fish known to cause illness when eaten. Most (79%) of the menus did not say what species was served, and when asked, almost a third said the wrong species while another 9% had no idea.

The problem, of course, is that it matters which species you eat. All Bluefin fisheries are unsustainable, and eating them ensures their doom. Meanwhile, Yellowtail and Bigeye, though better off, are approaching the same fate — though if caught with pole and line (the slower and more expensive way to fish), they could be sustainable. Only Albacore and Skipjack have healthy and well managed stocks right now, though if we lean more on them to make up for losses in the other three major fisheries, it’s likely they, too, will be in trouble. Despite warning after warning, government agencies all over continue to keep quotas for most species well above sustainable levels.

As if that’s not bad enough, members at the recent CITES meeting rejected legislation that would have limited the trade of tuna between countries. It seems that the politicians just don’t care enough, and it’s up to the public to make it clear that driving these species to extinction is not something we’re willing to stand for. To do that, we have to stop supporting the market… to stop going out to little take out sushi places and getting the Spicy Ahi Maki.

I tried to console myself that, living in Hawaii, it’s possible that the tuna I just ate was Skipjack, pole-caught locally… but I know better. Pole-caught fish are more expensive, and it’s not likely the cheap take-out sushi place is splurging for the local variety just for kicks, especially if they aren’t advertising the fact. No, that delicious meat was likely Yellowfin or Bigeye purse-seined or long-lined in some foreign country and shipped, frozen, to Honolulu to be eaten by cheap people like me.

The feeling that washed over me in that instant was not unlike the feeling you get when you drunkenly sleep with your ex a month or so after the breakup. Sure, it seems like a good idea at the time, and for a brief moment you feel pure pleasure. But you wake up the next morning coated with filth and regret. The truth is, you’ve only made things worse. You glare at yourself in the mirror, pissed that you were so stupid. But the worst part is the unshakeable feeling that lingers for days. You feel… well, there’s really no nice word for it. You feel like a slut.

That’s what you are, you know my conscience spits at me. You’re a tuna slut.

“Christie! Christie!” My cousin’s pleas snap me back.

“What is it Tuna?”

“You’re a toushie-face!” They erupt into laughter. The two are completely out of control. With the artful skill only an older cousin can have, I draw their attention back to the fish, explaining the different types and little facts about how they live. They’re mesmerized. Soon enough we’ve been seated, ordered our food, and had a nice lunch surrounded by the chaotic jungle of the Rainforest Cafe.

Later that evening, the girls kiss and hug me goodnight. “Goodnight Mouse, Goodnight Tuna,” I whisper to each. As they head upstairs with their parents to bed, I sip a glass of my uncle’s homemade red wine and can’t help but think about the plight of tuna.

A fish so beloved by so many like myself, yet its very survival is threatened by that adoration. The trouble is that it’s just hard to give up something we love so much. If I — a marine biologist armed to the teeth with the knowledge of exactly how bad the problem is — still cannot restrain myself from indulging, it seems hopeless to expect that the world will. If we continue to fish for bluefin and other tuna like we do now, there is no ambiguity about the result. They will disappear. Probably within my lifetime, maybe even sooner. And before they disappear, they’ll become so hard to find that a slice of sashimi will be as expensive as Beluga caviar is now.

It’s possible that regulating agencies will come to their senses and limit the catch, thus allowing tuna species to rebound before they’re completely gone — but they sure as all hell don’t seem inclined to. Some have had the idea of rolling moratoriums, where certain fishing locations are banned for several years, then others the next few years, to allow wild populations time to recover. Or maybe they could instate tuna credits, allowing fish-hungry nations like Japan to eat their fill while others abstain. There are a lot of ways politicians could help prevent overfishing — none of which, of course, they seem to want to do.

It’s also possible that we’ll find a way to farm tuna, taking the pressure off of falling wild stocks. As it stands now, many species of tuna are caught young and kept in pens until they’re big and fat enough to be slaughtered. But this isn’t really farming in the truest sense because they still have to be wild-caught first. Tuna species, particularly the plummeting Bluefin, have proven to be extremely difficult to aquaculture. They take 12 years to mature, and apparently, don’t find large aquariums or offshore corrals very romantic, so they don’t produce the next generation in captivity. Some have had luck using drugs to trick them into producing eggs, but the method was expensive and labor intensive, and it has yet to be seen if the young produced are healthy. While this does produce hope, it’s limited, and it’s hard to see commercial aquaculture technology rising fast enough to the occasion to save these species.

I can’t help but wonder if, in fifteen or twenty years, I’ll even be able to order maguro if I take my cousin out to a nice sushi restaurant so she can try the fish she’s nicknamed after.

Even if I can, I hope that when I suggest it, she glares, then sighs like she’s sick of explaining this kind of thing to ignorant people like me. Her generation will have learned from our mistakes. They will do better. She will remind me that tuna are rare and beautiful fish; that they’re aren’t that many left, and if we keep ordering tuna and continuing the demand for their meat, they will disappear altogether.

And, she’ll likely say, I’m a grown woman now — so stop calling me Tuna.

For more information about sustainable seafood choices, take a look at the Monterrey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch List for your area. In particular, you can help protect the wild tuna by ordering other, more sustainable sushi. For examples, check out SustainableSushi.Net.

Learn more about the plight of the tuna and what you can do to help at SaveTheBluefinTuna.Com.

In the immortal words of Tom Petty: “I won’t back down”

In the responses to my article on organic myths, I have been called an industrial shill, liar, and an organic hater. People have questioned my motives, saying I am a bioengineer or paid by Monsanto^*. They have called for my head, or at the very least, the retraction of my article.

In most of them, my arguments were inflated, twisted, or flat-out re-written. I don’t think GMOs “are the only way to feed the world.” I don’t think organics are “trying to take over.” So, screw the myths. This time around, I’m just going to focus on the facts.

Fact #1: Organic farming uses pesticides – and yes, organic pesticides are bad for you, too.

My main point in the first myth I brought up was simply to say that organic farms do use pesticides, contrary to what many people think. Since none of the people attacking my article can disagree with this fact (since it’s 100% true), they have instead warped my argument, saying I claim that organic farms are “seething hotbeds of toxic pesticide use” or that I believe all “naturally occurring pesticides pose the same risk as same as [sic] synthetic ones” when “the truth is, they’re [sic] don’t.”

I didn’t say either of those things. I did say that you can’t automatically assume a natural pesticide is safer, which was my point with rotenone. But Jason Mark claims it’s unfair to use rotenone as an example as it’s now banned in the US ~~– fair enough~~ (turns out the National Organic Program re-approved it in 2010 despite mounting evidence of its links to Parkinson’s. So my point stands). He then goes on to say that he chooses organic because he wants “to eat food that I know doesn’t involve the use of chemicals that harm ecosystems and have been linked to human health impacts.” Similarly, a response to my post on the Rodale Institute’s website says that the consumer can confidently state that they “buy organics because they don’t use the kinds of pesticides that create public and environmental health hazards, harm pollinators and other indicator species, make farmers and farmworkers sick, and/or persist for years in the environment accumulating up the food chain.”

Oh, really?

Let’s look at the details, shall we? The claim is that organic pesticides and fungicides are better to use because they’re less dangerous for us – and though he accuses me of ‘cherry-picking’, Jason only briefly talks about the health side effects of copper sulfate and conveniently doesn’t talk about the dangers of the most widely used organic fungicide: pyrethrum, though he delves deeply into the dangers of synthetics.

So let’s pit the most used organics against the most used conventional ones for a moment. In the USA, the top synthetic pesticide used is chlorpyrifos while the top fungicide is chlorothalonil. Yes, they are nasty chemicals, which in high doses are known to cause some serious health effects. But what about the organic alternatives? One way to compare is to look at their acute toxicity, often represented by an LD50 value. LD50, “lethal dose for 50%,” represents the dose at which 50% of a population will die from exposure.

In rats, the LD50 for copper sulfate is 30 milligrams per kilogram of body weight – which is a lot¹. But copper sulfate has also been shown to have chronic effects at lower doses of exposure. In animals, chronic exposure has led to anemia, stunted growth, and degenerative diseases^1,2,3. Furthermore, copper sulfate has been shown to disrupt reproduction and development, including inhibition of sperm development, loss of fertility, and lasting effects from in-utero exposure^3,4. Copper sulfate is also mutagenic and carcinogenic⁴. And because copper is a trace element, it is strongly bioaccumulated, meaning consistent low doses can lead to toxic levels^3,5. In people, increased exposure has been linked to liver disease and anemia^3,6.

What about chlorpyrifos? The LD50 is 95 to 270 mg/kg – 2.5 to 10 times less toxic than copper sulfate¹. As for its chronic effects, dogs fed chlorpyrifos at high doses daily did show increased liver weight and cholinesterase inhibition, meaning potential for neurological toxicity. But the effects went away immediately when feeding was stopped, and no long-term health effects were seen in either the dog or a similar rat study^7,8. Furthermore, no evidence of mutagenicity was found in any of four tests reviewed by EPA⁹. It’s also not considered carcinogenic – rats and mice fed high doses for two years showed no increases in tumor growth⁹.

As with copper sulfate, those who work with pesticides for a living have experienced acute toxic exposure to chlorpyrifos. Studies have also linked fetal and chronic exposure to neurological complications and cancer risk, but these studies are hard to interpret, as they rely on a biomarker which may overestimate exposure by 10 to 20 fold¹⁰. Unlike copper sulfate, chlorpyrifos does not build up or persist in body tissues, and thus is not considered have significant bioaccumulation potential¹¹. In humans, chlorpyrifos and its principal metabolites are eliminated rapidly following a single dose, within a day or so¹².

What about those fungicides? The LD50 for pyrethrum in rats ranges from 200 mg/kg to around 2,000 mg/kg. Those that get a lethal dose suffer from tremors, convulsions, paralysis and respiratory failure before they finally die¹. The LD50 for chlorothalonil? Well, it’s more than 10,000 mg/kg. That was the highest dose tested, but the rats still didn’t reach the 50% death rate target¹. Rats fed a range of doses of chlorothalonil by the EPA over time showed no effects on physical appearance, behavior, or survival¹³. Yes, in some other high-dose feeding studies, chlorothalonil showed the potential to act as a mutagen or carcinogen¹⁴. But so has pyrethrum, with exposure leading to increases in tumors in the lungs, skin, liver, and thyroid of mice and rats¹⁵.

Ecologically, pyrethrum is extremely toxic to aquatic life and slightly toxic to bird species¹⁶. Chlorothalonil is toxic to fish as well, but it is non-toxic to birds¹⁷. Perhaps the kicker is that pyrethrum has been shown to be highly toxic to bees and wasps, which are keystone species necessary for the pollination of crops and other plants¹⁸. Chlorothalonil, on the other hand, isn’t.

Tell me, do you feel like the organic alternatives are totally safe? Sorry, but organic pesticides do make farmers sick. They do bioaccumulate. They do harm non-target species.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: organic alternatives are applied in higher concentrations and more frequently because they’re less effective at controlling the species they’re meant to kill.

While it’s true that some organic farms may not use any pesticides, those organic foodstuffs in your supermarket are almost guaranteed to have used them, and liberally. As Tom Laskawy notes, “copper and sulfur in particular are often overused, especially among fruit growers.” As with conventional fruits and vegetables, most of what you’re getting at the supermarket is factory farmed. And as Michael Pollan and Samuel Fromartz, among others, have pointed out: factory farming is factory farming, even if it’s organic.

My point is, a pesticide is a pesticide. If it kills things, it does so for a reason, and you probably don’t want to go around eating it. Do I want to chow down on food coated with chlorpyrifos and chlorothalonil? Well, no, of course not. That’s why we screen for synthetic pesticide residues. However, we don’t screen for organic pesticide residues. Given what you just read, wouldn’t you want to know how much of those chemicals are ending up on your plate?

Of course, to be fair, the other most widely used organic pesticide is Bt toxin – which is, by just about any tests so far, non-toxic to people. That’s exactly why it was chosen for use in GMOs: because you can eat it all you want and it has no ill effects. But I’ll get into that more later.

Fact #2: Science has yet to support claims that organic foods are healthier.

In my second myth, I said that “science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones – and scientists have been comparing the two for over 50 years.” I was attacked for this statement, with citations of studies that show increased nutritional quality in organic strawberries, tomatoes and milk. It’s true – you can find single, unrepeated studies which have found some nutritional improvements. But that’s not how science works. When scientists weigh in on a topic, they can’t just rely on single studies that support their view. Instead, they have to consider all the studies on a topic, and examine the results of each. That is exactly what a meta-analysis does.

I actually cited not one but two separate papers which summarize the studies to date on nutritional quality, one of which was a meta-analysis^19,20. In both, the results were clear: any nutritional benefits are slim, variable, and not universal. In other words, overall, the science hasn’t supported any claims of unilateral nutritional benefits.

If you really want a more in depth look, check out Erin Prosser’s detailed explanation of the research. She concludes that the science is mixed at best, and even if organic foods are nutritionally superior, “it won’t be by much, meaning it may make no substantial difference in terms of your health.”

Fact #3…

Ok, my third myth got attacked on two fronts that are so separate, I feel the need to address them independently. So, instead of Fact #3, I have 3a and 3b.

Fact #3a: Certified organic farms don’t have yields that equal conventional ones.

Organic farming – and by organic farming, I mean farming that is officially organic through some certification process – has lower yields than conventional. At least, that’s what a 21-year study published by Science in 2002 found – that organic farming methods produced 80% what conventional farming methods did²¹. A 2008 review of the literature found organic yields were 50 – 75% of those of conventional farms²². An even more recent meta-analysis puts the value at 82%²³. In fact, only one study to date has said that organic methods get average yields higher than that.

This is the paper by Badgley and colleagues which many claim shows organic farms produce just as well as conventional ones²⁴. But that’s not what the paper says. The paper models whether or not organic farming can feed the world based on different yield percentages. The lowest yield they test for organic farming: 91%.

Where did the 91% figure come from? The authors averaged the yields from 293 studies they found looking at organic production. But the paper flat-out states that it considers a wide variety of agricultural systems in this analysis. The authors explicitly state that by organic, they are not “referring to any particular certi?cation criteria” and that they “include non-certi?ed organic examples.” They don’t just include a few – of their 293 ‘organic’ comparisons, 100 are not certified organic, including ones which likely used synthetic pesticides and GMOs²⁵. The paper’s methods, math and modeling have been critiqued strongly by two separate sources ^25,26.

Even still, I never, and still don’t, make any claim that sustainable agriculture can’t have the same yields as conventional farming. It definitely can. But you have to broaden the definition of “sustainable”, as Badgley et al. did, to include non-organic methods.

For example, a recent study found that alternative management strategies outperformed both conventional and organic methods. These strategies, like no-till methods, demonstrated greater production efficiencies than either conventional or organic, and even had greater average yields²⁷.

Do yields matter? Yes, they do. While we can argue left and right about whether hunger and famine now are a matter of production or politics, when the planet reaches 9 billion people or so in 2050, production will matter. That’s not to say that lower-yielding methods can’t be used in areas of abundance, or where people can afford it. But to feed nine billion mouths, we are going to have to be careful and efficient in our use of land if we are to produce enough food without destroying what little habitat is left for the world’s other species.

Fact #3b: GMOs aren’t evil, and yes, they might even do some good for the world.

By far the most passionate responses to my post centered around the issue of GMOs. I would argue that the rumors about my stance on GMOs have been greatly exaggerated. After all, I never claimed that “organic agriculture can be redeemed if only its definition can be broadened to include GMOs,” or that “genetic modification is all benefit and no risk.”

Do I think GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritional value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use? Yes, yes I do. I’m not alone on this – the science supports me.

GM crops have been in fields and on the market for decades now, and studies are starting to weigh in on their benefits. A recent review of results of farmer surveys found that of 168 comparisons between GM adopters and non-adopters, 124 show positive results for the GM adopters, 32 indicate no difference and only 13 show negative yields – and that these increases were highest in developing countries²⁸.

Most of the yield increases have come from the use of Bt crops. I specifically called out organic proponents on the hypocrisy of using Bt toxin liberally but not being willing to consider a GM Bt variety. As Jason Mark says, this means I claim that “there’s no distinction between spraying Bt and placing it directly into the plant” – but that’s not true at all. Of course there’s a difference. The GMO is the better solution. Studies have shown that spraying insecticides have a much stronger, negative effect on biodiversity than the use of transgenic crops²⁹, which is particularly important when you consider that Bt crops have reduced pesticide use by 30% or more³⁰. Furthermore, the pesticide use reduction wasn’t just in GM Bt fields – planting Bt varieties benefited non-GM growers, allowing them to reduce pesticide use and produce more crops³¹.

Bt crops not only increase yields and decrease pesticide use – they increase biodiversity. Three separate meta-analyses have confirmed that Bt crops benefit non-target species including bees and other insects^29,32,33.

Have GM crops failed their debut? No, they haven’t. “There is now considerable evidence that transgenic crops are delivering significant economic benefits,” writes Clive James in a review of transgenic crops published in Current Science. His final sentence unequivocally states that “improved crop varieties are, and will continue to be the most cost effective, environmentally safe and sustainable way to ensure global food security in the future.” A 2010 review study found that “results from 12 countries indicate, with few exceptions, that GM crops have benefited farmers.” Similarly, a review examining 155 peer-reviewed articles determined that “by increasing yields, decreasing insecticide use, increasing the use of more environmentally friendly herbicides and facilitating the adoption of conservation tillage, GM crops have already contributed to increasing agricultural sustainability.”

That’s not to say all GM crops are stunning examples of the potential benefits of GMOs. Herbicide resistant crops are perfect examples of how GM technology can be used poorly. I don’t like Roundup Ready corn any more than my critics. How anyone could have thought that making a crop resistant to an herbicide (thus ensuring that we use MORE of this herbicide) was a good idea is beyond me. But I’ve been told not to judge organic pesticides by rotenone, so how is it fair to judge the future potential of all genetic engineering by Roundup Ready crops?

While Tom Laskawy says that in listing the potential benefits of GMOs, I have transgressed from “science to science fiction” and that most of the GM varieties I mentioned “don’t even exist in the lab”, every one of them is being or has been produced (hence the links) – including virus-resistant sweet potatoes, high-calcium carrots, high-antioxidant tomatoes, vaccine-producing fruits and vegetables, and allergen-free foods. He’s right that they don’t exist commercially, but how can they when all GMOs are universally demonized?

The real problem is that although GMO technology can be used to produce large social and ecological benefits, most GM crops developed to date have been designed to benefit Big Ag. This trend will only continue if the public keeps its negative attitude towards GMOs. I don’t like Monsanto any more than you do – so why let them control how GM technology is used? If there was more public pressure and desire for socially and ecologically beneficial GMOs, more scientists could get involved and use the technology better.

That’s what happened when the Rockefeller Foundation funded researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology’s Institute for Plant Sciences. The result was Golden Rice – a vitamin-A rich variety that the foundation had hoped to freely give to third world countries to help fight malnutrition³⁴. The Swiss were working on a iron-rich variety, too, until widespread protesting of GMOs in Europe pressured the foundation into not renewing the institute’s funding.

Do I think all GMOs are perfect? Of course not. But should they be considered among the many different farming practices which may contribute to better farming in the future? Absolutely.

Fact #4: Farming practices of all types should be considered and weighed for their merits independent of labels.

The dichotomy between organic and conventional is misleading at best, and dangerous at worst. There is so much variation in each category that they are almost meaningless, except when it comes to our wallets.

I’m not pro factory farming. Nor am I pro organic. As Benton et al. write in their review of conventional, organic and alternative farming methods:

“rather than creating a misleading contrast by dividing farming systems into either organic/extensive and conventional/intensive there needs to be greater recognition that future farming has the potential to maintain yield whilst becoming “greener” by further optimizing inputs and practices to reduce environmental impacts”

Andy Revkin said it far better than me in his recent commentary on the destruction of GM wheat in Australia:

“It’s clear to me that genetics, intensified agriculture, organic farming, crop mixing, improved farmer training, precision fertilization and watering, improved food preservation and eating less wastefully and thoughtlessly will all play a role in coming decades — each in its place”

The central point of my mythbusting article, and of this one, is that the future of agriculture needs to examine all potential methods and determine if they are right for a given area. Landscapes are different – growing crops in Africa isn’t the same as growing crops in the Midwest, and if we universally apply the same methods globally, we are destined to fail both in terms of efficiency and sustainability. It is only through the breakdown of this arbitrary and variable distinction between methodologies and integration of a variety of practices that we will achieve our ultimate goal of a bright future both agriculturally and ecologically.

Links to the critiques of my first article:

Tom Laskawy, Grist: In Defense of Organic
Tom Philpott, Mother Jones: 3 Ways Scientific American Got The Organic Ag Story Wrong
Heather Pilatic, Pesticide Action Network, on Rodale.Com: Why The Organic Haters Are Dead Wrong
Jason Mark, Earth Island Journal, on Scientific American’s Guest Blog: Myths: Busted – Clearing Up the Misunderstandings about Organic Farming

*As for the attacks of my career and character, I can say without any hesitation that exactly 0% of my PhD funding comes from any kind of agribusiness. I study the population genetics and evolution of lionfish – you know, those frilly fish that are horribly invasive in the Atlantic. So no, Monsanto and bioengineering companies aren’t interested in what I do. If anyone really wants to know, my research funding and interests are freely disclosed and readily available on my website. And if anyone would like to contribute to said funding (bioengineering company or otherwise), there’s a nice contact form that you can use to get in touch with me. It’s a rough time to be studying science – I’ll take whatever funding I can get!

NOTE: I accidentally switched the uses of Copper Sulfate (actually an organic fungicide) with Pyrethrum (actually an organic insecticide). Oops! The points still stand, though – if you look at the information I provided, the organics are much more acutely and chronically toxic.

References:

EXTOXNET: Extension Toxicology Network. A Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/index.html

Clayton, GD and FE Clayton, eds. 1981. Patty’s industrial hygiene and toxicology. Third edition. Vol. 2: Toxicology. NY: John Wiley and Sons.

TOXNET. 1975-1986. National library of medicine’s toxicology data network. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). Public Health Service. National Institute of Health, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Bethesda, MD: NLM.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1981- 1986. Registry of toxic effects of chemical substances (RTECS). Cincinati, OH: NIOSH.

Gangstad, EO. 1986. Freshwater vegetation management. Fresno, CA: Thomson Publications.

New York State Department of Health. 1984. Chemical fact sheet: Copper sulfate. Bureau of Toxic Substances Management. Albany, NY.

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. 1986. Documentation of the threshold limit values and biological exposure indices. Fifth edition. Cincinnati, OH: Publications Office, ACGIH.

Hayes, WJ and ER Laws (ed.). 1990. Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, Vol. 3, Classes of Pesticides. Academic Press, Inc., NY.

US Environmental Protection Agency. June, 1989. Registration Standard (Second Round Review) for the Reregistration of Pesticide Products Containing Chlorpyrifos. Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA, Washington, DC.

Eaton, DL et al. 2008. Review of the Toxicology of Chlorpyrifos With an Emphasis on Human Exposure and Neurodevelopment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 2008 38:s2, 1-125

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1986. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Amendments to 6 NYCRR Part 326 Relating to the restriction of the pesticides aldrin, chlordane, chlorpyrifos, dieldrin and heptachlor. Division of Lands and Forests. Bureau of Pesticides. Albany, NY.

Nolan, RJ et al. 1984. Chlorpyrifos: Pharmacokinetics in human volunteers. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 73: 8-15.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Chlorothalonil: Fact Sheet Number 36. September 30, 1984. Washington, DC.

Sweet, D.V., ed. 1987. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances Microfiche January 1987. NIOSH, Washington, DC.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances . Carcinogenicity Peer Review of Pyrethrins . February 22, 1995. Washington, D C .

Casida, J. E., ed. 1973. Pyrethrum, The Natural Insecticide. Academic Press, New York.

Shelley LK, Balfry SK, Ross PS, Kennedy CJ. 2009. Immunotoxicological effects of a sub-chronic exposure to selected current-use pesticides in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquat Toxicol 92:95–103.

Cox, C. 2002. Pyrethrins/Pyrethrum Insecticide Factsheet. Journal of Pesticide Reform 22(1) 14-20.

Dangour, A., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., & Uauy, R. (2010). Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92 (1), 203-210 DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269

Rosen, J. (2010). A Review of the Nutrition Claims Made by Proponents of Organic Food Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 9 (3), 270-277 DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00108.x

Mader, P. (2002). Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming Science, 296 (5573), 1694-1697 DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148

Kirchmann, H et al. 2008. Can Organic Crop Production Feed the World? ORGANIC CROP PRODUCTION – AMBITIONS AND LIMITATIONS. 39-72, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9316-6_3

Mondelaers, K et al. 2009. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. British Food Journal, 111(10); 1098-1119. DOI: 10.1108/00070700910992925

Badgley, C et al. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22, 86–108

Avery, A. 2007. ‘Organic abundance’ report: fatally flawed. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22: 321-323

Gelfand, I., S. S. Snapp, et al. 2010. Energy Efficiency of Conventional, Organic, and Alternative Cropping Systems for Food and Fuel at a Site in the US Midwest. Environmental Science & Technology 44(10): 4006-4011.

Carpenter JE. Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nat Biotech 2010; 28:319-21

Wolfenbarger LL, Naranjo SE, Lundgren JG, Bitzer RJ, Watrud LS, 2008 Bt Crop Effects on Functional Guilds of Non-Target Arthropods: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 3(5): e2118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002118

Naranjo, S. E. 2009. Impact of Bt crops on non-target invertebrates and insecticide use patterns. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Sciences, Nutrition and Natural Resources 4: No 11 (PDF)

Hutchison, WD et al. 2010. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science. 330: 222-225.

Duan, J.J. et al. 2008. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt crops on honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS ONE 3, e1415.

Marvier, M. et al. 2007. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316, 1475–1477

Ye X et al. 2000. Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287:303-305

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

People believe a lot of things that we have little to no evidence for, like that vikings wore horned helmets or that you can see the Great Wall of China from space. One of the things I like to do on my blogs is bust commonly held myths that I think matter. For example, I get really annoyed when I hear someone say sharks don’t get cancer (I’ll save that rant for another day). From now onward, posts that attack conventionally believed untruths will fall under a series I’m going to call “Mythbusting 101.”

Ten years ago, Certified Organic didn’t exist in the United States. Yet in 2010, a mere eight years after USDA’s regulations officially went into effect, organic foods and beverages made $26.7 billion. In the past year or two, certified organic sales have jumped to about $52 billion worldwide despite the fact that organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional methods. More and more, people are shelling out their hard-earned cash for what they believe are the best foods available. Imagine, people say: you can improve your nutrition while helping save the planet from the evils of conventional agriculture – a complete win-win. And who wouldn’t buy organic, when it just sounds so good?

Here’s the thing: there are a lot of myths out there about organic foods, and a lot of propaganda supporting methods that are rarely understood. It’s like your mother used to say: just because everyone is jumping off a bridge doesn’t mean you should do it, too. Now, before I get yelled at too much, let me state unequivocally that I’m not saying organic farming is bad – far from it. There are some definite upsides and benefits that come from many organic farming methods. For example, the efforts of organic farmers to move away from monocultures, where crops are farmed in single-species plots, are fantastic; crop rotations and mixed planting are much better for the soil and environment. My goal in this post isn’t to bash organic farms, instead, it’s to bust the worst of the myths that surround them so that everyone can judge organic farming based on facts. In particular, there are four myths thrown around like they’re real that just drive me crazy.

Myth #1: Organic Farms Don’t Use Pesticides

When the Soil Association, a major organic accreditation body in the UK, asked consumers why they buy organic food, 95% of them said their top reason was to avoid pesticides. They, like many people, believe that organic farming involves little to no pesticide use. I hate to burst the bubble, but that’s simply not true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?

So was I, when I first learned this from a guy I was dating. His family owns a farm in rural Ohio. He was grumbling about how everyone praised the local organic farms for being so environmentally-conscientious, even though they sprayed their crops with pesticides all the time while his family farm got no credit for being pesticide-free (they’re not organic because they use a non-organic herbicide once a year). I didn’t believe him at first, so I looked into it: turns out that there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. Why the government isn’t keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 ¹. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.

The sad truth is, factory farming is factory farming, whether its organic or conventional. Many large organic farms use pesticides liberally. They’re organic by certification, but you’d never know it if you saw their farming practices. As Michael Pollan, best-selling book author and organic supporter, said in an interview with Organic Gardening,

“They’re organic by the letter, not organic in spirit… if most organic consumers went to those places, they would feel they were getting ripped off.”

What makes organic farming different, then? It’s not the use of pesticides, it’s the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential – or serious – health risks.²

Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades ³. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered “safe” as well as “organic“. However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms in rats ⁴, and had the potential to kill many species, including humans. Rotenone’s use as a pesticide ~~has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns~~***, but shockingly, it’s still poured into our waters every year by fisheries management officials as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species.

The point I’m driving home here is that just because something is natural doesn’t make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you definitely wouldn’t want sprayed on your food.

Just last year, nearly half of the pesticides that are currently approved for use by organic farmers in Europe failed to pass the European Union’s safety evaluation that is required by law ⁵. Among the chemicals failing the test was rotenone, as it had yet to be banned in Europe. Furthermore, just over 1% of organic foodstuffs produced in 2007 and tested by the European Food Safety Authority were found to contain pesticide levels above the legal maximum levels – and these are of pesticides that are not organic ⁶. Similarly, when Consumer Reports purchased a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides, they found traces of them in 25% of the organically-labeled foods, but between all of the organic and non-organic foods tested, only one sample of each exceeded the federal limits⁸.

Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted ‘reduced-risk’ organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective means of control, the organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in other, non-target species like the aphid’s predators⁹. Of course, some organic pesticides may fare better than these ones did in similar head-to-head tests, but studies like this one reveal that the assumption that natural is better for the environment could be very dangerous.

Even if the organic food you’re eating is from a farm which uses little to no pesticides at all, there is another problem: getting rid of pesticides doesn’t mean your food is free from harmful things. Between 1990 and 2001, over 10,000 people fell ill due to foods contaminated with pathogens like E. coli, and many have organic foods to blame. That’s because organic foods tend to have higher levels of potential pathogens. One study, for example, found E. coli in produce from almost 10% of organic farms samples, but only 2% of conventional ones¹⁰. The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers, as many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination. Conventional farms often use manure, too, but they use irradiation and a full array of non-organic anti-microbial agents as well, and without those, organic foods run a higher risk of containing something that will make a person sick.

In the end, it really depends on exactly what methods are used by crop producers. Both organic and conventional farms vary widely in this respect. Some conventional farms use no pesticides. Some organic farms spray their crops twice a month. Of course, some conventional farms spray just as frequently, if not more so, and some organic farms use no pesticides whatsoever. To really know what you’re in for, it’s best if you know your source, and a great way to do that is to buy locally. Talk to the person behind the crop stand, and actually ask them what their methods are if you want to be sure of what you’re eating.

Myth #2: Organic Foods are Healthier

Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms, organic farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones – and scientists have been comparing the two for over 50 years.

Just recently, an independent research project in the UK systematically reviewed the 162 articles on organic versus non-organic crops published in peer-reviewed journals between 1958 and 2008 ¹¹. These contained a total of 3558 comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any differences in content of over 15 different nutrients including vitamin C, ?-carotene, and calcium. There were some differences, though; conventional crops had higher nitrogen levels, while organic ones had higher phosphorus and acidity – none of which factor in much to nutritional quality. Further analysis of similar studies on livestock products like meat, dairy, and eggs also found few differences in nutritional content. Organic foods did, however, have higher levels of overall fats, particularly trans fats. So if anything, the organic livestock products were found to be worse for us (though, to be fair, barely).

“This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of food we consume, which is produced by technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is commonly referred to as the ‘organic’ market,” said Fredhelm Schmider, the Director General of the European Crop Protection Association said in a press release about the findings.¹²

Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food toxicology at Rutgers, puts it even more strongly. “Any consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money,” he writes in a comprehensive review of organic nutritional claims¹³.

Strong organic proponents also argue that organic food tastes better. In the same poll where 95% of UK organic consumers said they buy organic to avoid pesticides, over two-thirds of respondents said organic produce and meats taste better than non-organic ones. But when researchers had people put their mouths to the test, they found that people couldn’t tell the difference between the two in blind taste tests^{14, 18}.

So, in short, organics are not better for us and we can’t tell the difference between them and non-organic foods. There may be many things that are good about organic farming, from increased biodiversity on farms to movement away from monocultures, but producing foods that are healthier and tastier simply isn’t one of them.

Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment

As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they’re doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they’re not – at least the issue is not that cut and dry.

Yes, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been found to be ecologically damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together. Take, for example, organic farming’s adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use – which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do. As we speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world¹⁵. Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.

Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It’s one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant’s genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals, like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds. If the goal is protect the environment, why not incorporate the newest technologies which help us do so?

But the real reason organic farming isn’t more green than conventional is that while it might be better for local environments on the small scale, organic farms produce far less food per unit land than conventional ones. Organic farms produce around 80% that what the same size conventional farm produces¹⁶ (some studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional farms!).

Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it¹⁷. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. Unfortunately, what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little wild habitat left for many threatened and endangered species.

Already, we have cleared more than 35% of the Earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all the world’s cities and suburbs. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to what’s left of our planet’s wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 20% or more of the world’s ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?

The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether. That’s not to say that there’s no hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. On the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial, but presuming it’s the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

Myth #4: It’s all or none

The point of this piece isn’t to vilify organic farming; it’s merely to point out that it’s not as black and white as it looks. Organic farming does have many potential upsides, and may indeed be the better way to go in the long run, but it really depends on technology and what we discover and learn in the future. Until organic farming can produce crops on par in terms of volume with conventional methods, it cannot be considered a viable option for the majority of the world. Nutritionally speaking, organic food is more like a brand name or luxury item. It’s great if you can afford the higher price and want to have it, but it’s not a panacea. You would improve your nutritional intake far more by eating a larger volume of fruits and vegetables than by eating organic ones instead of conventionally produced ones.

What bothers me most, however, is that both sides of the organic debate spend millions in press and advertising to attack each other instead of looking for a resolution. Organic supporters tend to vilify new technologies, while conventional supporters insist that chemicals and massive production monocultures are the only way to go. This simply strikes me as absurd. Synthetic doesn’t necessarily mean bad for the environment. Just look at technological advances in creating biodegradable products; sometimes, we can use our knowledge and intelligence to create things that are both useful, cheap (enough) and ecologically responsible, as crazy as that idea may sound.

I also firmly believe that increasing the chemicals used in agriculture to support insanely over-harvested monocultures will never lead to ecological improvement. In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies to reduce pesticide use while increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yield, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isn’t the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally.

As far as I’m concerned, the biggest myth when it comes to organic farming is that you have to choose sides. Guess what? You don’t. You can appreciate the upsides of rotating crops and how GMOs might improve output and nutrition. You, the wise and intelligent consumer, don’t have to buy into either side’s propaganda and polarize to one end or another. You can, instead, be somewhere along the spectrum, and encourage both ends to listen up and work together to improve our global food resources and act sustainably.

See more on this, in response to critiques: In the immortal words of Tom Petty: “I won’t back down”

More Mythbusting 101:

Sharks will cure cancer

*** Oh, it turns out Rotenone got re-approved for organic use in 2010. See for yourself.

Regarding the use of GMOs: perhaps Andy Revkin from The New York Times says it better.

Based on the responses, I just want to make this clear: this is NOT a comprehensive comparison of organic and conventional agriculture, nor is it intended to be. That post would be miles long and far more complex. My overall belief is that there shouldn’t be a dichotomy in the first place – there are a variety of methods and practices that a farmer can use, each with its pros and cons. The main point here is that something “organic” isn’t intrinsically better than something that isn’t, and that you have to approach all kinds of agriculture critically to achieve optimum sustainability.

Ok, and while I’m adding in notes: stop citing Bedgley et al. 2007 as evidence that organic farming produces equal yields: this study has been shown to be flawed (see my comments in the follow up post to this article), and was strongly critiqued (e.g. this response article).

References

National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, National Pesticide Use Database. Available from http://www.ncfap.org (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).

Gold, L., Slone, T., Stern, B., Manley, N., & Ames, B. (1992). Rodent carcinogens: setting priorities Science, 258 (5080), 261-265 DOI: 10.1126/science.1411524

Rotenone: Resource Guide for Organic and Disease Management. Cornell University. Available at www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/resourceguide/mfs/11rotenone.php (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).

Caboni, P., Sherer, T., Zhang, N., Taylor, G., Na, H., Greenamyre, J., & Casida, J. (2004). Rotenone, Deguelin, Their Metabolites, and the Rat Model of Parkinson’s Disease Chemical Research in Toxicology, 17 (11), 1540-1548 DOI: 10.1021/tx049867r

EFSA 2009. Pesticides used in organic farming: some pass and some fail safety authorization. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).

Reasoned opinion of EFSA prepared by the Pesticides Unit (PRAPeR) on the 2007 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues. EFSA Scientific Report (2009) 305, 1-106

Consumer Reports 1998. Organic produce. Consumer Reports 63(1), 12-18.

FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (2000). Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring 1999. Available at http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)

Bahlai, C., Xue, Y., McCreary, C., Schaafsma, A., & Hallett, R. (2010). Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans PLoS ONE, 5 (6) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011250

Mukherjee A, Speh D, Dyck E, & Diez-Gonzalez F (2004). Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers. Journal of food protection, 67 (5), 894-900 PMID: 15151224

Dangour, A., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., & Uauy, R. (2010). Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92 (1), 203-210 DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269

EFSA 2009. Study finds no additional nutritional benefit in “organic” food. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed Jul 2011)

Rosen, J. (2010). A Review of the Nutrition Claims Made by Proponents of Organic Food Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 9 (3), 270-277 DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00108.x

Fillion, L., & Arazi, S. (2002). Does organic food taste better? A claim substantiation approach Nutrition & Food Science, 32 (4), 153-157 DOI: 10.1108/00346650210436262

Qaim, M. The Economic Effects of Genetically Modified Orphan
Commodities: Projections for Sweetpotato in Kenya. Agricultural Economist Center for Development Research (ZEF), No. 13-1999. PDF

Mader, P. (2002). Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming Science, 296 (5573), 1694-1697 DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148

Fedoroff, N. (1999). Plants and population: Is there time? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96 (11), 5903-5907 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.11.5903

Basker, D. (2009). Comparison of taste quality between organically and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7 (03) DOI: 10.1017/S0889189300004641

What’s in a name?

This past weekend, I sat down at my computer hell-bent on writing this post. I knew I couldn’t about write about just anything – not for my first real post on Scientific American. I mean, sure, I’ve written for the guest blog a couple times, but this is different. This is my blog. I have been obsessing about this post for weeks. Without realizing it, I was standing in front of the thickest writer’s block I’ve ever seen, a wall so dense that I spent all weekend thinking about this post and still got absolutely nowhere. Suddenly, there I was: less than 12 hours before my post was to be published, and not a single word of it written. I just needed a topic, I figured. A really, really good topic.

I named this blog “Science Sushi” for two reasons. The first was that I wanted an image that would explain how interesting and great science can be when it’s kept simple. No over-inflated results, no tenuous connections to barely-related concepts – just the research, all by itself, stripped of the scientific jargon that usually makes it inaccessible. The word “raw” kept coming to mind – that I reveal the “meat” of a study, or expose its “tender flesh.” At some point, while throwing those words around, I imagined a plate of nigiri, but overlaying the rice were atoms and animals and all the cliche images of science instead of raw slabs of fish. Suddenly my brain was filled with visions of hand rolls bursting with DNA helices and gene sequences served alongside an Erlenmeyer flask instead of a tokkuri of sake. The visual was too powerful to ignore. So, Science Sushi it was.

Of course, the second reason (and probably the reason why the words “raw” and “tender” magically transformed images of science into nigiri and temaki) is that I love sushi. No, not love – love is what I feel for my job and my family. The emotion I feel towards sushi is such a deep passion that I don’t have a good word to describe it. It’s the first thing I think of when someone asks what my favorite food is, or what I’m in the mood for. I could eat it at every meal and never grow tired of the sweet taste of tender raw fish and sticky rice with just the right touch of shoyu and wasabi.

Duh!, I thought to myself, that’s what I have to write about! As I sifted through idea after idea, it just seemed entirely too appropriate that this post focus on the food that inspired my blog’s title and that has such a special place in my heart.

My favorite food has an interesting past. While we now think of the freshest seafood neatly wrapped in rice and seaweed, sushi began as a way of preserving fish. Early Southeast Asian peoples realized that if they packaged salted fish in fermented rice, it kept for a long time and could travel inland. That’s where sushi got it’s name – the word comes from “zushi” which meant “sour-tasting” in an archaic language form. It wasn’t until the 19^th century that nigiri was created and fresh fish became the norm. Even still, sushi was mainly a Japanese dish – only at the end of the 20^th century did sushi begin to go global. Now, sushi restaurants are common worldwide, and in some areas, like here in Hawaii, they are found on every corner next to Starbucks.

Why did sushi become so popular? In part, the onset of modern technologies like jumbo jets allowed globalization of fisheries in an unprecedented way. Fish caught on one end of the world could suddenly be sold ‘fresh’ on the other. The other part, of course, was good marketing. In the 1970s, Japanese culture and cuisine was sold to the world as the epitome of sophistication and health. As developed nations started to feel the economic weight of rising obesity rates, healthy foods became more and more popular – sushi among them. Nutritionally speaking, it’s well established that fish is one of the healthiest sources for protein and is also conveniently packed with Omega-3 fatty acids and other good fats. Rice is one of the better forms of carbohydrates out there, and even the seaweed that wraps sushi rolls, called nori, is full of soluble dietary fiber.

Of course, that’s not to say sushi is always great for you. Like any food, it depends on the volume and kind. Tuna and other large, predatory fish are not only good sources of protein, they contain more than the recommended dietary dose of mercury, a potent toxin. Furthermore, eating any raw fish is a bit of a gamble, as raw seafoods can contain an impressive variety of tapeworms, nematodes, flukes and other parasites that cause disease in humans.

It’s not that I’m trying to scare you out of eating sushi – clearly, all the knowledge in the world hasn’t scared me. No, if only eating sushi were such a risk that more people avoided it. Our sudden appreciation of Japanese cuisine has had catastrophic affects.

As an article in TIME yesterday pointed out, fish are the last wild food. We once turned to the wilderness for all our meat. A few centuries ago, when we gazed out across the American prairies, we were overwhelmed by the seemingly endless supply of meat in the form of the buffalo. There were, quite literally, tens of millions of them. But even tens of millions were no match for human hunters, and what once was a sea of shaggy beasts dwindled to a handful of isolated populations on the verge of extinction.

Our approach to the endless bounty of the sea was no different. The oceans just seemed so deep that it was hard to believe that we could ever pull the last of a species from the vast watery abyss. Yet in the past century or so, fishery after fishery has collapsed, leaving our seas empty in comparison. You might not have noticed fewer fish in your supermarket, but according to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, 70% of global fish species are overexploited or depleted. The rise in popularity of sushi furthers this trend, and prime sushi species like the beloved tuna are the latest casualties of our inaccurate view of the oceans.

The decimation of so many fish species has made us sadder but also wiser. Now we realize that we are (to steal from the recent documentary’s title) at ‘the end of the line’ when it comes to the world’s fish. It seems like overnight, sustainable seafood has become the new fad for consumers and the new focus of conservation organizations.

Management and government oversight, however, has yet to catch up with the sustainability trend. Tunas, for example, are knowingly overfished, and even still, members at the recent CITES meeting rejected legislation that would have limited the trade of tuna between countries. The EU, at least, is vowing to try and reform – they hope to make their fisheries sustainable by 2015 – if that’s not too little, too late. To be fair, this would be is a step up from the dreadful way they have been dealing with things up until now. Just this year, the IUCN estimated that more than 40 species of fish may disappear from the Mediterranean in the next few years. The sad truth is that unless governments step up now to protect these and other fishes, the sushi species we know and love will probably disappear before we know it.

Perhaps, as Douglas Adams phrased it in Last Chance To See, we are not truly sadder and wiser after all our experiences – instead we are merely sadder and better informed.

We know that we must change how and what we eat, including making smarter choices when it comes to sushi. The upside is that this is something you – and I – can do. Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch has tailored their efforts specifically to sushi-lovers. If you want to really understand why these choices matter, just talk to Casson Trenor, author of Sustainable Sushi: A Guide to Saving the Oceans One Bite at a Time and the website SustainableSushi.net. For him, the sustainable sushi comes from a deep love of the food, and his desire to see his children and their children be able to enjoy it like he does.

I couldn’t agree more. While sushi is my favorite food, I don’t eat it as much as my heart desires. While on occasion I might overindulge (and become a ‘tuna slut’), I do know better, and keep my sushi habit in check despite the constant temptation here in Hawaii. My love for sushi is like one of my friend’s love for sweets – sure, she could happily eat brownies at every meal, but she doesn’t because she knows the consequences. In this case, the science has been unequivocally clear: the consequences of eating sushi with reckless abandon means one thing – oceans without fish.

So there you have it. That’s the science of sushi, raw and direct. It’s not as pretty a picture as we might like, but it’s not hopeless. Hopefully, the fact that you read this post all the way through until this point is a good start. Hopefully, you’ll take to heart some of the sobering truths. Hopefully, you’ll make ecologically smarter choices when it comes to eating healthy. And hopefully, hopefully, you and I can sit down to a nice plate of nigiri in 50 years and not feel like we’re eating the last of my favorite food.